Talk:Timecrimes

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Spanish cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plot complications

Currently the plot complications section is uncited and the construction of one editor. Without references it should be removed. I will notify the editor that added the section. danno 23:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue that some of the "plot complications" section is incorrect in its analysis. The author states that the table is both unable and later able to fit in the house, leading to the assumption that history is alterable under a many worlds hypothesis. Aside from adding unnecessary complication to the plot of the film, this is contradicted when Clara states "The table doesn't fit in the bedroom." I'm fairly certain I heard that correctly and it's backed up by a few subtitle sites. In general, the whole section is easily way into original research territory and I don't think warrants inclusion or the reference search to keep it. Fracai (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Plot Complications section was full of unrelated time travel problems and had several factual errors pertaining to the plot. I left the one part that was correct and actually related to the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.103.175 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was removed, i put it back in because the other version does not fit the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.103.175 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And then he wakes up"?

This sentence appears at the end of the plot summary. Only I've just watched this film, and this doesn't happen. Is this a case of the writer of the article seeing a different cut of the film, or is it incorrect? Kelvingreen (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back through the edit history, and the sentence was added to the end of the summary by an anonymous user who made no other edits, so I've removed it for now. Kelvingreen (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"After removing his bandages, Héctor 3 convinces the scientist to send him back several seconds before Héctor 2 appears."

When hector convinces the scientist, he is still hector 2. Only when he appears in the past, does he become hector 3. Can someone phrase this nicely and edit it? Navane (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No time loop

The film does not show a time loop, it only shows the story of a man who by means of a deliberate push of a button travels through time two times and witnesses the same timespan three times from a different POV. A time loop is stable without such deliberate, often technological interference. See Groundhog Day (1993) for a classic example of an actual time loop. --80.187.106.89 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources disagree with you: [1]. I'm not aware of a definition of "time loop" that requires nobody to press to press buttons. A case could be made that this is more properly a causal loop, but the terms are frequently interchangeable in common use. This is briefly mentioned in the time loop article, and it is sourced. The best I can find that describes the causality loop is this article, which never really uses the phrase "casual loop", though it discusses some of the film's themes and the causality nightmare. In fact, if that's not already in the article, I'll add it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information and Expansion

This article is incomplete and is missing a significant portion of information on the film's production, and release which needs to be added to the article. The inspiration section should be combined with a production section since it details a part of the film's development (specifically what inspired it). The lead section is too short and needs to be expanded through use of copy editing from different sections of the article (see Manual of Style Film for more details). This article has promise and if the above listed issues are resolved it may qualify for good article status.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs expansion, but what does adding cleanup tags do to help this? If someone is going to do it, they will. Adding tags and empty sections isn't going to make them do it any sooner. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]